CAC / NGC / PCGS and the + Designation

[mikew148]

As we know, both NGC and PCGS assign a + designation to coins they feel are deserving for being on the high end of the grade. NGC does not list prices for such designations but PCGS does.

 

This is normally not an issue for me but today I found myself in a bit of a quandary.

 

I was looking into obtaining an 1886 Morgan Dollar graded MS 66+ by NGC. It also has been given a green sticker by CAC.

 

By giving their endorsement CAC is saying this coin is a solid 66+. In an NGC holder a 66+ is priced at $350 plus whatever premium one is willing to pay for the + designation. The PCGS guide values a 66+ at $650.

 

So the questions are -

 

1. What do you feel this coin is worth in an NGC holder?

2. Why doesn't NGC put a price in the + column in their guide? They took the time to put the plus sign in the price guide - they just never added any prices.

 

I read a post here a few months back where people weighed in on the value of an NGC + designation and it was all over the map. PCGS makes it very clear.

[coinman_23885]

(1) CAC ignores the plus designation; their verification only confirms that it is either solid or premium quality for the grade (MS66);

(2) I would estimate the coin's value to be approximately $300-$450 (est.); and

(3) The plus designation is relatively new; thus, there may not exist sufficient auction records and pricing histories to permit them to determine a value for their price guide.

[James_OldeTowne]

Be extremely cautious with "plus" coins. Such pieces were extremely hot when the designation first came out, but that market has substantially flattened out. For a coin with a "plus", we would lean heavily closer toward the lower grade than the higher grade.

 

And "plus" seems terribly inconsistent to me. I guess I don't know exactly what earns the designation, because some coins with a "plus" seem overgraded just for the numeric grade.

 

To my knowledge, CAC ignores the "plus" and evaluates strictly by the numeric grade.

[Nutmeg Coin]

If you check the PCGS shared orders page it looks like big submissions are more likely to get an occasional plus grade than the small ones; with their system you do not know by looking at the certification number if a given coin was number 23 of a large submission as with NGC, which has amazed me, large wholesalers must be doing some huge submissions.

 

On pricing, the untutored think that in between grades as well as plusses, etc. command an equidistant or equivalent sell value, but that is not how the most disciplined buyers in this business see it.

[brg5658]

(1) CAC ignores the plus designation; their verification only confirms that it is either solid or premium quality for the grade (MS66);

(2) I would estimate the coin's value to be approximately $300-$450 (est.); and

(3) The plus designation is relatively new; thus, there may not exist sufficient auction records and pricing histories to permit them to determine a value for their price guide.

 

Are you sure about point (1) Kenny? I remember someone here specifically asking John Albanese about this, and I thought I recall the answer being that CAC is stickering the number plus the "+". That is, the are agreeing with the "+".

 

I'm not disagreeing, but seriously asking. There is (to my knowledge) not stance on this issue on the CAC website...and my memories of who asked JA directly are a bit fuzzy...

[brg5658]

As we know, both NGC and PCGS assign a + designation to coins they feel are deserving for being on the high end of the grade. NGC does not list prices for such designations but PCGS does.

 

This is normally not an issue for me but today I found myself in a bit of a quandary.

 

I was looking into obtaining an 1886 Morgan Dollar graded MS 66+ by NGC. It also has been given a green sticker by CAC.

 

By giving their endorsement CAC is saying this coin is a solid 66+. In an NGC holder a 66+ is priced at $350 plus whatever premium one is willing to pay for the + designation. The PCGS guide values a 66+ at $650.

 

So the questions are -

 

1. What do you feel this coin is worth in an NGC holder?

2. Why doesn't NGC put a price in the + column in their guide? They took the time to put the plus sign in the price guide - they just never added any prices.

 

I read a post here a few months back where people weighed in on the value of an NGC + designation and it was all over the map. PCGS makes it very clear.

 

To answer your price question (1), given that the NGC population of this coin in MS67 is huge (925 coins) and that there are even a few MS68 coins (19 graded by NGC) -- I would say that the "+" doesn't add much to the value. I would say at most, the $450-500 range would be my guess. Probably closer to $420 would be reasonable.

 

To address your question (2), you should understand that NGC doesn't have their own price guide. NGC uses Numismedia price guide values. And, I'd rather there be nothing in the Numismedia price guide for "+" coins, than for them to just make something up -- which is what PCGS has done as best I can tell.

[MarkFeld]

(1) CAC ignores the plus designation; their verification only confirms that it is either solid or premium quality for the grade (MS66);

(2) I would estimate the coin's value to be approximately $300-$450 (est.); and

(3) The plus designation is relatively new; thus, there may not exist sufficient auction records and pricing histories to permit them to determine a value for their price guide.

 

Are you sure about point (1) Kenny? I remember someone here specifically asking John Albanese about this, and I thought I recall the answer being that CAC is stickering the number plus the "+". That is, the are agreeing with the "+".

 

I'm not disagreeing, but seriously asking. There is (to my knowledge) not stance on this issue on the CAC website...and my memories of who asked JA directly are a bit fuzzy...

 

CAC most assuredly, ignores the plus, when deciding whether to sticker a coin. And they do not bid any higher for plus coins than for non-plus ones.

[Nutmeg Coin]

It would just be complicated for CAC to agree with the plus designations as that is additional price value in many cases. I have had nice plus and cac coins that literally double in the next higher grade yet it is tough to even get 10% over GS ask for really nice coins. It's the numbers game.

[coinman1794]

(3) The plus designation is relatively new; thus, there may not exist sufficient auction records and pricing histories to permit them to determine a value for their price guide.

 

That is correct. Two additional notes:

 

1) PCGS makes up the prices for plus coins on their price guide.

 

2) PCGS ownes their price guide and has more flexibility to conform it to their needs than NGC, who simply hosts the prices provided by Numismedia.

[Walkerfan]

I usually ignore the plus and I wouldn't pay a big premium for it.

[brg5658]

(1) CAC ignores the plus designation; their verification only confirms that it is either solid or premium quality for the grade (MS66);

(2) I would estimate the coin's value to be approximately $300-$450 (est.); and

(3) The plus designation is relatively new; thus, there may not exist sufficient auction records and pricing histories to permit them to determine a value for their price guide.

 

Are you sure about point (1) Kenny? I remember someone here specifically asking John Albanese about this, and I thought I recall the answer being that CAC is stickering the number plus the "+". That is, the are agreeing with the "+".

 

I'm not disagreeing, but seriously asking. There is (to my knowledge) not stance on this issue on the CAC website...and my memories of who asked JA directly are a bit fuzzy...

 

CAC most assuredly, ignores the plus, when deciding whether to sticker a coin. And they do not bid any higher for plus coins than for non-plus ones.

 

If that is true, then

 

1) Why isn't this clear from any document / information on the CAC website?

 

2) Why do they ignore the "+"? The plus is NOT like a star designation. It IS part of the numeric technical grade assigned to a coin by PCGS and NGC.

 

3) CAC does review coins for such designations as FH, FBL, FB/FT, and FS. In addition, I believe they also review proofs for CAM and DCAM/UCAM when they are affixing their stickers.

 

Again, not being argumentative here, but ignoring a "+" seems odd if they are putting their sticker of approval on a slab for every other designation on the "grade line" of the coin (except the obviously subjective NGC star).

[MarkFeld]

(1) CAC ignores the plus designation; their verification only confirms that it is either solid or premium quality for the grade (MS66);

(2) I would estimate the coin's value to be approximately $300-$450 (est.); and

(3) The plus designation is relatively new; thus, there may not exist sufficient auction records and pricing histories to permit them to determine a value for their price guide.

 

Are you sure about point (1) Kenny? I remember someone here specifically asking John Albanese about this, and I thought I recall the answer being that CAC is stickering the number plus the "+". That is, the are agreeing with the "+".

 

I'm not disagreeing, but seriously asking. There is (to my knowledge) not stance on this issue on the CAC website...and my memories of who asked JA directly are a bit fuzzy...

 

CAC most assuredly, ignores the plus, when deciding whether to sticker a coin. And they do not bid any higher for plus coins than for non-plus ones.

 

If that is true, then

 

1) Why isn't this clear from any document / information on the CAC website?

 

2) Why do they ignore the "+"? The plus is NOT like a star designation. It IS part of the numeric technical grade assigned to a coin by PCGS and NGC.

 

3) CAC does review coins for such designations as FH, FBL, FB/FT, and FS. In addition, I believe they also review proofs for CAM and DCAM/UCAM when they are affixing their stickers.

 

Again, not being argumentative here, but ignoring a "+" seems odd if they are putting their sticker of approval on a slab for every other designation on the "grade line" of the coin (except the obviously subjective NGC star).

 

Sorry, I can't answer your reasonable questions.

 

But, is the NGC star really any more subjective than whole number grades, much less plus grades?

[Nutmeg Coin]

Look at how NGC describes the significance of the plus designation:

 

PLUS DESIGNATION

 

NGC assigns a plus to coins at the high end of their assigned grade, approaching the quality requirements for the next grade. In addition to their superior technical merit, coins receiving a plus designation must have above-average eye appeal.

 

For example, a coin graded NGC MS 64 is close to the quality of a coin graded NGC MS 65. The plus is synonymous with the term "PQ" or "Premium Quality."

 

Not all coins are eligible for the plus. Coins grading from XF 45 to MS 68 or PF 45 to PF 68 may receive a plus, while lower- and higher-grade coins cannot. Additionally, the plus is only assigned to United States coins from 1792 to 1964.

 

Coins are automatically evaluated for a plus during grading when submitted under the Economy, Early Bird, Gold Rush, Specialty Gold, Express and WalkThrough tiers. All on-site and CrossOver grading submissions are also automatically evaluated for . There is no designation review service for . Coins must be submitted for grading to receive this designation.

http://www.ngccoin.com/coingrading/plus-and-star-designations.aspx

 

Look at how CAC uses criteria on their system:

 

"It is CAC’s goal to recognize and give deserved credit to quality coins. It is our hope and strong belief that this process will minimize the unfair negative effect on quality coins by decoupling them from their lower-end counterparts. One can only wonder what the price of an MS 65 1922 $20 Saint would be today if the CAC stickering process had been in place five years ago.

 

"CAC is currently working on an exchange for certified coins and other numismatic products. We expect that there will be enough activity on the new exchange to justify published CAC Values sometime in 2008. (needs to be updated)

 

"5. I noticed that CAC uses the term “premium quality” to describe coins that receive a CAC sticker. How does CAC define premium quality?

For many years, coin dealers and advanced collectors have used the letters A, B, and C among themselves to further describe coins. C indicates low-end for the grade, B indicates solid for the grade, and A indicates high-end. CAC will only award stickers to coins in the A or B category. C coins, although accurately graded, will be returned without a CAC sticker."

http://www.caccoin.com/faqs/

 

So the common denominator here is "quality" coins. B coins should not be getting the "plus" designation, only "A" quality according to their stated policies. CAC approves both B and A coins.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

(1) CAC ignores the plus designation; their verification only confirms that it is either solid or premium quality for the grade (MS66);

(2) I would estimate the coin's value to be approximately $300-$450 (est.); and

(3) The plus designation is relatively new; thus, there may not exist sufficient auction records and pricing histories to permit them to determine a value for their price guide.

 

Are you sure about point (1) Kenny? I remember someone here specifically asking John Albanese about this, and I thought I recall the answer being that CAC is stickering the number plus the "+". That is, the are agreeing with the "+".

 

I'm not disagreeing, but seriously asking. There is (to my knowledge) not stance on this issue on the CAC website...and my memories of who asked JA directly are a bit fuzzy...

 

CAC most assuredly, ignores the plus, when deciding whether to sticker a coin. And they do not bid any higher for plus coins than for non-plus ones.

 

If that is true, then

 

1) Why isn't this clear from any document / information on the CAC website?

 

2) Why do they ignore the "+"? The plus is NOT like a star designation. It IS part of the numeric technical grade assigned to a coin by PCGS and NGC.

 

3) CAC does review coins for such designations as FH, FBL, FB/FT, and FS. In addition, I believe they also review proofs for CAM and DCAM/UCAM when they are affixing their stickers.

 

Again, not being argumentative here, but ignoring a "+" seems odd if they are putting their sticker of approval on a slab for every other designation on the "grade line" of the coin (except the obviously subjective NGC star).

 

I contacted CAC and was reminded that a March 2012 press release, which can be found on their site, addressed the issue.

 

 

See here

 

[brg5658]

(1) CAC ignores the plus designation; their verification only confirms that it is either solid or premium quality for the grade (MS66);

(2) I would estimate the coin's value to be approximately $300-$450 (est.); and

(3) The plus designation is relatively new; thus, there may not exist sufficient auction records and pricing histories to permit them to determine a value for their price guide.

 

Are you sure about point (1) Kenny? I remember someone here specifically asking John Albanese about this, and I thought I recall the answer being that CAC is stickering the number plus the "+". That is, the are agreeing with the "+".

 

I'm not disagreeing, but seriously asking. There is (to my knowledge) not stance on this issue on the CAC website...and my memories of who asked JA directly are a bit fuzzy...

 

CAC most assuredly, ignores the plus, when deciding whether to sticker a coin. And they do not bid any higher for plus coins than for non-plus ones.

 

If that is true, then

 

1) Why isn't this clear from any document / information on the CAC website?

 

2) Why do they ignore the "+"? The plus is NOT like a star designation. It IS part of the numeric technical grade assigned to a coin by PCGS and NGC.

 

3) CAC does review coins for such designations as FH, FBL, FB/FT, and FS. In addition, I believe they also review proofs for CAM and DCAM/UCAM when they are affixing their stickers.

 

Again, not being argumentative here, but ignoring a "+" seems odd if they are putting their sticker of approval on a slab for every other designation on the "grade line" of the coin (except the obviously subjective NGC star).

 

I contacted CAC and was reminded that a March 2012 press release, which can be found on their site, addressed the issue.

 

 

See here

 

Thank you Mark. Navigating their "search" mechanism is less than easy. I appreciate the link.

-Brandon

[jerseycat10]

Can someone tell me how CAC liquidates all the coins it has bought-back under its market-making program?

[brg5658]

Can someone tell me how CAC liquidates all the coins it has bought-back under its market-making program?

 

They give them to Ankur!?!

 

Seriously, I have no idea, but I have wondered the same...

[MarkFeld]

Can someone tell me how CAC liquidates all the coins it has bought-back under its market-making program?

 

They are buying the coins, not buying them back. My guess is that a large number of the coins are placed with collectors and investors and sold to dealers.

[Nutmeg Coin]

I understand Blanchard is a major buyer of CAC coins. I don't know how dealers and investors get on their list to buy. They are always looking for MS65 and above rare coins that have been approved.

[jom]

If that is true, then

 

1) Why isn't this clear from any document / information on the CAC website?

 

2) Why do they ignore the "+"? The plus is NOT like a star designation. It IS part of the numeric technical grade assigned to a coin by PCGS and NGC.

 

3) CAC does review coins for such designations as FH, FBL, FB/FT, and FS. In addition, I believe they also review proofs for CAM and DCAM/UCAM when they are affixing their stickers.

 

Again, not being argumentative here, but ignoring a "+" seems odd if they are putting their sticker of approval on a slab for every other designation on the "grade line" of the coin (except the obviously subjective NGC star).

 

I could swear that CAC does NOT consider the designations in their decisions. However, I'm not completely sure so I have a question out to them on this....I hope to get an answer soon.

 

As to the value of the coin in OP, it kinds of depends on what it looks like...I think.

 

jom

[jom]

Follow up: It looks like I was wrong. I've been told a designated coin needs to meet CAC's criteria for the said designation or it won't sticker since they would have to buy that coin at market value....and as we know a "FB" could be worth a lot more than a non-FB etc etc.

 

jom

[physics-fan3.14]

If that is true, then

 

1) Why isn't this clear from any document / information on the CAC website?

 

2) Why do they ignore the "+"? The plus is NOT like a star designation. It IS part of the numeric technical grade assigned to a coin by PCGS and NGC.

 

3) CAC does review coins for such designations as FH, FBL, FB/FT, and FS. In addition, I believe they also review proofs for CAM and DCAM/UCAM when they are affixing their stickers.

 

Again, not being argumentative here, but ignoring a "+" seems odd if they are putting their sticker of approval on a slab for every other designation on the "grade line" of the coin (except the obviously subjective NGC star).

 

I could swear that CAC does NOT consider the designations in their decisions. However, I'm not completely sure so I have a question out to them on this....I hope to get an answer soon.

 

As to the value of the coin in OP, it kinds of depends on what it looks like...I think.

 

jom

 

I know that their designation "certifies" the FBL designation, at the very least: http://www.caccoin.com/category/reference-sets/

 

However, since they use the PCGS definition of FBL, the CAC sticker is useless in determining if the coin actually has FBL's (in my book, both sets of lines have to be full and complete, per the NGC definition. PCGS and CAC only require the bottom set of lines).

[Walkerfan]

Can someone tell me how CAC liquidates all the coins it has bought-back under its market-making program?

 

They are buying the coins, not buying them back. My guess is that a large number of the coins are placed with collectors and investors and sold to dealers.

 

How can we as collectors and investors view and purchase these CAC bought coins?

[coinman_23885]

(1) CAC ignores the plus designation; their verification only confirms that it is either solid or premium quality for the grade (MS66);

(2) I would estimate the coin's value to be approximately $300-$450 (est.); and

(3) The plus designation is relatively new; thus, there may not exist sufficient auction records and pricing histories to permit them to determine a value for their price guide.

 

Are you sure about point (1) Kenny?

 

Yes.

[physics-fan3.14]

Can someone tell me how CAC liquidates all the coins it has bought-back under its market-making program?

 

They are buying the coins, not buying them back. My guess is that a large number of the coins are placed with collectors and investors and sold to dealers.

 

How can we as collectors and investors view and purchase these CAC bought coins?

 

M y impression is they sell them to dealers, they don't sell directly to collectors. You would never know, and probably have already bought, coins which CAC had purchased for themselves.

[jom]

However, since they use the PCGS definition of FBL, the CAC sticker is useless in determining if the coin actually has FBL's (in my book, both sets of lines have to be full and complete, per the NGC definition. PCGS and CAC only require the bottom set of lines).

 

I understand your point on this but I wouldn't say "useless". Once you know what CAC's definition says (ie follows PCGS standard) THAT should be what you expect. No more no less.

 

Now NGC's definition is tougher so I suppose those coins should be worth more.

 

Having said that, IMO, no sticker nor a designation from any TPG is going to determine whether a coin has FBL (or FB or FT etc etc), my EYES are going to do that for me.

 

jom

[James_OldeTowne]

[ contacted CAC and was reminded that a March 2012 press release, which can be found on their site, addressed the issue.

While attempting to clarify, the article may also help to confuse. It seems to imply that CAC ignores color designations for copper, CAM/UCAM designations for proof coins, FH/FBL/FS/FT, and PL/DMPL designations for all series .

 

Edited to add: I see that others have already brought up these issues and are also confused....

[physics-fan3.14]

However, since they use the PCGS definition of FBL, the CAC sticker is useless in determining if the coin actually has FBL's (in my book, both sets of lines have to be full and complete, per the NGC definition. PCGS and CAC only require the bottom set of lines).

 

I understand your point on this but I wouldn't say "useless". Once you know what CAC's definition says (ie follows PCGS standard) THAT should be what you expect. No more no less.

 

Now NGC's definition is tougher so I suppose those coins should be worth more.

 

Having said that, IMO, no sticker nor a designation from any TPG is going to determine whether a coin has FBL (or FB or FT etc etc), my EYES are going to do that for me.

 

jom

 

My point is that seeing the "FBL" designation on a PCGS or CAC coin is not helpful in determining if the coin is actually FBL - because about half of them do not meet my criteria. I don't waste my time with them, unless I'm looking for a specific date and can see the coin in hand. PCGS gives the designation to a LOT of non-FBL coins, so I cannot trust them at all - I treat every coin in their slab as non-FBL.

 

Getting the discussion back to CAC - because CAC uses the same definition, it adds absolutely nothing to the desirability or reliability PCGS slab and seems pointlessly redundant on the NGC slab.

[mikew148]

Thanks to all for the input.

 

Seems a little misleading to look at a slab that says MS66+ CAC and the CAC endorsement means nothing to the + designation. I'm certain that many coins are being bought under the impression that CAC is endorsing the + designation. Also, some sellers tend to say things like " Graded MS66+ by NGC and CAC agrees".

 

I've gained a little more knowledge and for that I say Thank You!

 

 

I've contacted the seller of the coin in question and have received a few more pictures of the reverse. It has some toning that was not well imaged in the listing.

The new pics show some nice toning and I was able to get the price down to $380 shipped.

 

With the combination of the + designation, the CAC sticker and the new pics showing a beautiful coin with some attractive toning, I'm moving forward with the purchase!

 

The thing I love about these forums - You ask a question and you will receive some very well informed answers!!!! Thank you!

 

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

Seems a little misleading to look at a slab that says MS66+ CAC and the CAC endorsement means nothing to the + designation. I'm certain that many coins are being bought under the impression that CAC is endorsing the + designation.

 

I don't understand why many are mislead by this; the service has always advertised itself as separating the "A" and "B" quality coins from the low end "C" quality coins (a close paraphrase from John Albanese, the CAC website, and several of their advertisements), with the solid and high end coins receiving a green sticker. I have never seen a "B" quality coin that I would award a plus designation and except for a few errors, I cannot imagine that a grading service would either. If CAC were to start verifying verifying the plus designation, then it would seemingly need to separate between "A" and "B" quality coins for those that are already at the top of the grade (i.e. to be awarded the designation). How can one distinguish between a 64.9 and a 64.95 or even a 64.8 with consistency? Grading is subjective and this is inherent in the nature of the activity itself. Also, your interpretation would create a lot of ambiguity. For instance, does a 66+ that doesn't sticker, under your interpretation, mean that it is not a 66+ or that it is not a 66? There is a huge difference between the two. In order to implement your desired interpretation, they would need to add new colors to the sticker pallet. One can only slice the salami but so thinly before the distinctions become meaningless and superficial.